Support NeoGAF

[Thrakier]

If you're able to do comparisons like that it sounds like you have a 360. And if you think the 360 would be a better buy... just get that version?

Yeah, but I don't have XBL Gold and my Coop-Friend is on PSN. But I don't think I can stand the PS3 framerate, it's annyoing. That said, I'm sure that's not gamebreaking and that there are people out there who can not notice stuff like that. Sadly, I can.

 

[USD]

Yeah, but I don't have XBL Gold and my Coop-Friend is on PSN. But I don't think I can stand the PS3 framerate, it's annyoing. That said, I'm sure that's not gamebreaking and that there are people out there who can not notice stuff like that. Sadly, I can.

It is only a demo. Who's to say that the framerate is the same in the final.

 

[Thrakier]

It is only a demo. Who's to say that the framerate is the same in the final.

The first reviews... You know, it's not like I don't want the PS3 version on par, I would love to buy it. But the difference in framerate is quite significant and I just don't believe that they fixed that...

And Splitscreen is imo unplayable in the PS3 version, there are some slowdowns even in the 360 version.

 

[Facism]

Yeah, but I don't have XBL Gold and my Coop-Friend is on PSN. But I don't think I can stand the PS3 framerate, it's annyoing. That said, I'm sure that's not gamebreaking and that there are people out there who can not notice stuff like that. Sadly, I can.

try the ps3 demo in split screen and hold your head in your hands. It's disgusting. I wish they held the ps3 version back to actually make it run smoothely. Really annoying, i had friends i was going to ply this with on the ps3, but it looks like i'm buying the 360 version and using my brother's gold account.

 

[Sectus]

Yeah, but I don't have XBL Gold and my Coop-Friend is on PSN. But I don't think I can stand the PS3 framerate, it's annyoing. That said, I'm sure that's not gamebreaking and that there are people out there who can not notice stuff like that. Sadly, I can.

If your coop friend is on PSN that should be pretty much reason enough to get the PS3 version. And is the framerate really that bad? I just played PS3 demo 5-6 times today with a friend, and while I noticed the framerate was worse than the 360 version, it didn't bug me at all. I thought the demo was fully playable.

If you truly think it's gamebreaking, just get the 360 version and make your coop friend think you're the worst friend in the world >

 

[Thrakier]

try the ps3 demo in split screen and hold your head in your hands. It's disgusting. I wish they held the ps3 version back to actually make it run smoothely. Really annoying, i had friends i was going to ply this with on the ps3, but it looks like i'm buying the 360 version and using my brother's gold account.

Yeah, currently I have both on preorder, I'll cancel one after I read some more reviews but I guess it will be the PS3 version. It's really dissapointing that such a major Triple-A titel from Capcom has framerate problems. This is something that shouldn't happen. I mean I don't care for some 3rd party crap from UbiSoft or stuff like that but man, that's resident evil! It's a major playstation game since RE1. Really really sad.

@sectus

It's not gamebreaking in a gameplay sense, it's still working but for ME it's gamebreaking in terms of immersion etc. - I can not stand it after I played the 360-version (which even looks a bit better tbh).

 

[Sectus]

Well, do yourself a favour and not look at the PC version after that's released. RE5 with better graphics at 60 fps will make the console versions look like a joke.

Sorry if I'm sounding rude, but it just seems like a very trivial issue to me. I'm getting both versions and I'll most probably play the PS3 version first. And that's simply because I have a friend on PSN I know will get the game as soon as it's released and we promised to play it coop once we both have the game.

 

[Thrakier]

Hm, no, for me it's not the same. Even if the the PC-Version is better (which doesn't matter for me because I don't play games on PC anyway) the 360 version is still fine with constant 30FPS. You get used to it and it's fine. But I can not get used to framerates below 30...

 

[MvmntInGrn]

The PS3 version in SP seems fine framerate wise, splitscreen is constantly below 30 though.

Not an issue for me since I will play multi online. I would wait to see more footage and reviews though, I'd imagine the game has been cleaned up somewhat.

 

[Thrakier]

Not an issue for me since I will play multi online. I would wait to see more footage and reviews though, I'd imagine the game has been cleaned up somewhat.

That's what I hope for, yeah.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I had my first slowdown in the 360 demo yesterday. Not sure what caused it but it didn't last long. Odd.

 

[Thrakier]

The problem is not so much slowdown but more a framerate which is almost constantly lower than 30. I would guess something around 25 to 28, no idea. Just stay still in the beginning of the first demo level and turn around. If you face the door the camera will pan a lot smoother and as soon you look away from the door with all that stuff on screen you will see (and feel) how the framerate goes down.

 

[momolicious]

Why is there no official Resident Evil 5 thread?

Question: For the offline co-op, is the game set up where you can play single player and anybody can jump in? Or you have to start a specific offline co-op save and will always be split screen with no computer jumping in if someone stops playing.

 

[USD]

Why is there no official Resident Evil 5 thread?

Question: For the offline co-op, is the game set up where you can play single player and anybody can jump in? Or you have to start a specific offline co-op save and will always be split screen with no computer jumping in if someone stops playing.

Because the game doesn't come out for another month.

As for the second part, I have no idea, but I have a feeling it's the first.

 

[USD]

I've left so much negative feedback while playing this demo it's ridiculous. Thank god for the "Lacking skill" option, just so I don't have to play with stupid people, whose best strategy is to stand completely still and die (even as I cry "Run away!" a thousand times), ever again. In a way though, it's improved my skills to the point that I can practically play for both players.

 

[Sectus]

FRAMERATE CHALLENGE TIME!

Okie, Thrakier's comment about PS3's having a constant lower FPS than the 360 version intrigued me. With my magical capture card I recorded a little bit of the demo from both the 360 and PS3 versions, and tried to do the same things so that the footage would be similar.

Does anyone know of a program (or a plugin for a program like After Effects) which analyses the frames, check which ones are identical and then display a framerate based on that info?

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Why is there no official Resident Evil 5 thread?

Question: For the offline co-op, is the game set up where you can play single player and anybody can jump in? Or you have to start a specific offline co-op save and will always be split screen with no computer jumping in if someone stops playing.

I'm not sure whether or not this has changed, but back at TGS I believe I read that all you have to do is turn on a second controller and press start. If you want to leave, turn off.

Drop-in, drop-out.

But I haven't heard anything since. So we shall see.

 

[Sectus]

Counting duplicated frames = not-surprisingly super boring.

Anyway, based on the very start of the second mission up until you slash the first box, the framerate on the 360 version is a constant 30 fps. On the PS3 version, it's 29 most of the time (while 28 or 30 other times). One frame skipped per second shouldn't really be noticable though.

I could do a more thorough test and encode a full playthrough of each level and check what the framerate is for all the different scenes. But there's no freaking chance I'm counting frames for that If anyone knows of a program which can check how duplicated frames there are per second in a video and output that, that would be great.

 

[Volcynika]

Why is there no official Resident Evil 5 thread?

Question: For the offline co-op, is the game set up where you can play single player and anybody can jump in? Or you have to start a specific offline co-op save and will always be split screen with no computer jumping in if someone stops playing.

Official threads usually don't go up more than two weeks before a game's release.

 

[Rentahamster]

Am I not able to make a game to play online co-op with a specific friend of mine? Do we have to be in the same party or something?



I don't know how to Xbox very well.


EDIT: Nevermind, I'm retarded.

 

[USD]

Am I not able to make a game to play online co-op with a specific friend of mine? Do we have to be in the same party or something?



I don't know how to Xbox very well.

At the Host Game/Join Game screen (right after selecting Online Coop), there is an option to set the Coop setting to Partner. Only people you specifically invite can join. Select a stage then invite your friend.

 

[Rentahamster]

At the Host Game/Join Game screen (right after selecting Online Coop), there is an option to set the Coop setting to Partner. Only people you specifically invite can join. Select a stage then invite your friend.

Heh, yeah, thanks

Apparently I don't know how to press the dpad up one tick.

 

[Arpharmd B]

Well, do yourself a favour and not look at the PC version after that's released. RE5 with better graphics at 60 fps will make the console versions look like a joke.

Sorry if I'm sounding rude, but it just seems like a very trivial issue to me. I'm getting both versions and I'll most probably play the PS3 version first. And that's simply because I have a friend on PSN I know will get the game as soon as it's released and we promised to play it coop once we both have the game.

I don't think it would be worth it to wait for a PC version and miss out. It's still going to be the same exact assets, just in higher resolution and AA (read: perfect image yum). But it's not like the 360 or PS3 versions are grainy or have slowdown.

That would be like waiting for SF4 on PC. I mean how much better really is it gong to look.

 

[Bill Squabber]

Does anybody else have a problem where there screen goes dark when they send an invite or accept one?

Im playing on my 60g PS3.

 

[Pelloki]

As both a regular NeoGaf lurker and the writer of the Xbox World 360 review I find the reaction to the game's running time extremely alarming. I'm not sure why people refuse to believe the truth but for some reason the seven and a half hour completion time is being falsely branded as fake. Unfortunately for everybody I've decided to take screens to prove our time, so there can be no denying it any longer.

Sprinting through the game is of no use to anyone - we didn't do that. Reviewing a game isn't about willy-waving and marvelling at how fast we can complete it - it's about telling the reader our honest experience. I know from previous experience that it's extremely hard to judge a game's length without recording the hours played. Thankfully Resident Evil 5 does this task for us, but you'll be surprised at how easy it could be to over-estimate a game's running time by a number of hours. It's why I always log my time spent on a game if I'm going to explicitly mention its length. The 15-20 hours quoted previously seem awfully high for just a single play-through of the campaign.

Anyway, that's enough from me. Here's the link to those pictures.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=208807

 

[Future PhaZe]

Who is working on the official thread?

 

[Zenith]

I'm not sure why people refuse to believe the truth but for some reason the seven and a half hour completion time is being falsely branded as fake.

Because even people blasting through it to try and get to the later never-before-seen chapters took 3 hours to reach the first Uroboros. When every other outlet is saying 14 hours you have to wonder why you took half as much time.

And what was the problem with the final boss fight? yes I would have preferred a mano e mano physical force fight rather than running around jumping through hoops but how did you keep dying on it?

 

[USD]

nevermind

 

[Sectus]

As both a regular NeoGaf lurker and the writer of the Xbox World 360 review I find the reaction to the game's running time extremely alarming. I'm not sure why people refuse to believe the truth but for some reason the seven and a half hour completion time is being falsely branded as fake. Unfortunately for everybody I've decided to take screens to prove our time, so there can be no denying it any longer.

Sprinting through the game is of no use to anyone - we didn't do that. Reviewing a game isn't about willy-waving and marvelling at how fast we can complete it - it's about telling the reader our honest experience. I know from previous experience that it's extremely hard to judge a game's length without recording the hours played. Thankfully Resident Evil 5 does this task for us, but you'll be surprised at how easy it could be to over-estimate a game's running time by a number of hours. It's why I always log my time spent on a game if I'm going to explicitly mention its length. The 15-20 hours quoted previously seem awfully high for just a single play-through of the campaign.

Anyway, that's enough from me. Here's the link to those pictures.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=208807

Another question is, how does the game calculate the time and how did RE4 do so? Does the timer count deaths and retries? Does it include time spent buying/upgrading weapons, watching cutscenes and whatnot? Since the game seemed to be more focussed on scores and leaderboards, perhaps they made the timer pause for many of those events, while RE4 did not.

Are you basing your time spent completing the game solely on that timer or did you measure time in another way too? I don't think anyone is lying, but there's a rather big difference between 8 hours and 14 hours other people are reporting. Either someone is "rushing", or measuring the time spent in a different way.

 

[Future PhaZe]

Jeez I hope that 8 hour mark is wrong.

 

[KeeSomething]

As both a regular NeoGaf lurker and the writer of the Xbox World 360 review I find the reaction to the game's running time extremely alarming. I'm not sure why people refuse to believe the truth but for some reason the seven and a half hour completion time is being falsely branded as fake. Unfortunately for everybody I've decided to take screens to prove our time, so there can be no denying it any longer.

Sprinting through the game is of no use to anyone - we didn't do that. Reviewing a game isn't about willy-waving and marvelling at how fast we can complete it - it's about telling the reader our honest experience. I know from previous experience that it's extremely hard to judge a game's length without recording the hours played. Thankfully Resident Evil 5 does this task for us, but you'll be surprised at how easy it could be to over-estimate a game's running time by a number of hours. It's why I always log my time spent on a game if I'm going to explicitly mention its length. The 15-20 hours quoted previously seem awfully high for just a single play-through of the campaign.

Anyway, that's enough from me. Here's the link to those pictures.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=208807

I'm sure you completed the game in that time, but that doesn't mean it will be the same for everyone else. All gamers are different. To tell you the truth, I'm a bit slower (at games like Resident evil). Even if I do complete the game in 7 hours, if it's anything like RE4, I'll be replaying it for years to come. Online co-op and the unlocjable modes will keep me busy, I'm sure.

 

[Future PhaZe]

Well I've heard several people say RE4 is an 8 hour game also...

 

[Pelloki]

I'm sure you completed the game in that time, but that doesn't mean it will be the same for everyone else. All gamers are different. To tell you the truth, I'm a bit slower (at games like Resident evil). Even if I do complete the game in 7 hours, if it's anything like RE4, I'll be replaying it for years to come. Online co-op and the unlocjable modes will keep me busy, I'm sure.

Absolutely. I'm quite astonished at how much our completion time has been taken out of context. The seven and a half hour running time (which does include deaths and restarts by the way - hence the bloated final chapter time first time through - but not the cut-scenes which I timed this morning at 80 minutes in total) referred to our first complete play through, not our total time. As I posted on our website [shameless pimp] www.xboxworld360.co.uk [/shameless pimp], I spent more than twenty-five hours in that game; completing it three times and tinkering with all the extras. Resident Evil 5 will last everybody much, much longer that seven and a half hours in total - we never said anything to the contrary. In fact, take a look at the review or listen to our podcast (I'd rather both, naturally…) and you'll see that I was careful to stress that the game greatly improves with repeated plays. Unfortunately some people have picked up the campaign's length and blown it out of proportion, thinking that was all I'd spent with it and all we thought it'd last you. It's not. At all.

In any case, the game's length was a minor aside in the review and didn't even get a mention outside of the second paragraph (the review is ten pages long). I didn't alter the score because I finished the game 'so quickly' - I'd be mad to have done so given the replay factor. I'm not a stickler for 'replayability weighting' anyway. Ask me to name my favourite game of last year and I'll pick Braid. I played that through a few times, but it's not exactly screaming to be completed over and over again. Game length can be an important factor sometimes, but I'll base a review on the content of the running time over the running time itself. Just look at a gem such as Portal and you'll see why.

And that's all I'll say on the matter. I'm not here to defend my review - the review speaks for itself and if you disagree with it then that's your right. I'd be shocked if some people didn't disagree. Everybody disagrees with everything! Well, not quite but you get what I mean. But I just wanted to clarify that the time we spent with the game in total was far greater than the time I've quoted for its first campaign completion, and that at no point have I said anything other than that. As a Resident Evil fan since day one (yes I've even got Gaiden and the relatively rubbish Survivor games) I wouldn't have given Resi 5 anything less than the fairest testing it could possibly be subjected to. Hopefully you'll look at our previous comments which caused so much furore and see that's the case.

 

[Davey Cakes]

Well I've heard several people say RE4 is an 8 hour game also...

RE4 certainly is less than 8 hours if you have the best weapons.

I don't expect RE5 to be any different. Takes 15-25 hours on the first playthrough (at least), and gets shorter on subsequent plays with better upgraded weapons and all that.

If this isn't the case, I'd be disappointed. Though, considering how much time and money has gone into making RE5, I have massive doubts as to why the game would be noticeably shorter than RE4 by a matter of hours.

 

[Volcynika]

Who is working on the official thread?

I wonder this too. I've never seen anyone mention they are.

 

[Sectus]

@Pelloki - I believe you and appreciate that you take the time to post here but there is a bit of a contrary with the times different people mentioned. I guess it's probably due to playing style. In RE4 for instance I spent a large amount of time exploring to find every little item in the world, and in a few cases backtracking to areas I've already been to after they were re-populated with enemies and items.

I dunno if that's how RE5 is setup, but I get the impression that's the kind of things which affects the drastically different completion times.

 

[Zenith]

Absolutely. I'm quite astonished at how much our completion time has been taken out of context. The seven and a half hour running time (which does include deaths and restarts by the way - hence the bloated final chapter time first time through - but not the cut-scenes which I timed this morning at 80 minutes in total) referred to our first complete play through, not our total time. As I posted on our website [shameless pimp] www.xboxworld360.co.uk [/shameless pimp], I spent more than twenty-five hours in that game; completing it three times and tinkering with all the extras. Resident Evil 5 will last everybody much, much longer that seven and a half hours in total - we never said anything to the contrary. In fact, take a look at the review or listen to our podcast (I'd rather both, naturally…) and you'll see that I was careful to stress that the game greatly improves with repeated plays. Unfortunately some people have picked up the campaign's length and blown it out of proportion, thinking that was all I'd spent with it and all we thought it'd last you. It's not. At all.

All that replayability stuff is irrelevant. The fact is your 8 hours including cutscenes for a single playthrough still doesn't jibe with every other reviewer's and my own experiences. People are going to question how it was achieved.

 

[StranGER]

All that replayability stuff is irrelevant. The fact is your 8 hours including cutscenes for a single playthrough still doesn't jibe with every other reviewer's and my own experiences. People are going to question how it was achieved.

What are other playthrough times coming out as? 8 hours for a single player story survival horror is a bit quick. I recall RE 4 taking much more time playing through my 1st go.

 

[RBH]

Who is working on the official thread?

It would only be fitting for cvxfreak to do it.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

What are other playthrough times coming out as? 8 hours for a single player story survival horror is a bit quick. I recall RE 4 taking much more time playing through my 1st go.

Yeah, my first playthrough of RE4 was 17-18 hours, so 8 hours in RE 5 feels very short in comparisson, damn even REmake first playthrough for me was more than that!

 

[USD]

In games like this I've noticed it varies from person to person. For example, it took me 22 hours to beat RE4 the first time. It took me barely 10 the second time and that's mostly because I skipped most encounters rather shooting.

Christopher thought it was weird I beat it in 22 hours, citing that length was far too long. On the other hand, there are posters here who spent up to 25 or even 12-15 hours with RE4 the first time.

He'll be questioned how he did it, but fact is, not all people play these games the same way. Wario64 can blaze through a game that'd take me 30 hours in 9-10.

This is what I think is the case. Took me 21 hours to beat RE4 the first time, but for I've heard of people beating it in nearly half the time on their first try.

 

[shintoki]

Its the same as many FPS, Action/adventure games, and other more "skilled" based games. Its were how quick you adapted to the encounters, How is your skill level, What is your plan(Slaughter everything in the area or ignore and only kill what you have too?), etc etc.

Like for myself, It took around 18-19 hours for RE4. But I also felt bad if I left anything alive :lol

 

[USD]

With how much time I've put in the demo, I'll probably be able to blaze through the game pretty quickly.

So since Mercenaries is already confirmed, and Capcom was talking about adding a new mode as DLC, I wonder what it could be.

 

[StranGER]

would sure suck if this guy's 8 hour play through was equivalent to someone who was on the longer side meaning the variant could be anywhere from 4 hours to 12 hours with that logic. (i don't like that logic at all.)

 

[gconsole]

I start to wonder if 8 hours is a bit too quick for you to appreciate anything in the game, even with the skill player (as from my impression that this game is just a bit shorter than RE4). Don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean i don't believe the xbox world review guy. 8/10 is fine and sounds legit by me. But the review comment itself sounds a bit too harsh and it seems this game is the worst thing they have ever played somehow. They don't enjoy any single thing the game present beside the good graphic. This only happen to me when I play the game with really really bad quality which I doubt it would happen with RE5. With the review text, the game should only get 3/10 or something.

 

[Davey Cakes]

RE4 took me 27 hours on my first playthrough. Got as much out of that game as I could've. On the second playthrough, I shortened it to 15 hours.

REmake took me around 14 hours the first time, no kidding. The second time, even on the harder difficulty, was more like 11.

As I've said before, I find it hard to believe that RE5 would take me anything under 20 hours to beat, given that the time and money that went into it eclipses both RE4 and REmake.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

Absolutely. I'm quite astonished at how much our completion time has been taken out of context. The seven and a half hour running time (which does include deaths and restarts by the way - hence the bloated final chapter time first time through - but not the cut-scenes which I timed this morning at 80 minutes in total) referred to our first complete play through, not our total time. As I posted on our website [shameless pimp] www.xboxworld360.co.uk [/shameless pimp], I spent more than twenty-five hours in that game; completing it three times and tinkering with all the extras. Resident Evil 5 will last everybody much, much longer that seven and a half hours in total - we never said anything to the contrary. In fact, take a look at the review or listen to our podcast (I'd rather both, naturally…) and you'll see that I was careful to stress that the game greatly improves with repeated plays. Unfortunately some people have picked up the campaign's length and blown it out of proportion, thinking that was all I'd spent with it and all we thought it'd last you. It's not. At all.

In any case, the game's length was a minor aside in the review and didn't even get a mention outside of the second paragraph (the review is ten pages long). I didn't alter the score because I finished the game 'so quickly' - I'd be mad to have done so given the replay factor. I'm not a stickler for 'replayability weighting' anyway. Ask me to name my favourite game of last year and I'll pick Braid. I played that through a few times, but it's not exactly screaming to be completed over and over again. Game length can be an important factor sometimes, but I'll base a review on the content of the running time over the running time itself. Just look at a gem such as Portal and you'll see why.

And that's all I'll say on the matter. I'm not here to defend my review - the review speaks for itself and if you disagree with it then that's your right. I'd be shocked if some people didn't disagree. Everybody disagrees with everything! Well, not quite but you get what I mean. But I just wanted to clarify that the time we spent with the game in total was far greater than the time I've quoted for its first campaign completion, and that at no point have I said anything other than that. As a Resident Evil fan since day one (yes I've even got Gaiden and the relatively rubbish Survivor games) I wouldn't have given Resi 5 anything less than the fairest testing it could possibly be subjected to. Hopefully you'll look at our previous comments which caused so much furore and see that's the case.

Not to be an ass here chief, but why does your mag use the term ''SHOCK SCORE'' on the cover? You are using the score as a selling point for the mag. Buy this and see the shocking score! That is not journalistic integrity. That's lowballing a game for sales. I know it and you know it. We all do.

In fact, you seem to trying awfully hard to convince people that you did complete the game, posting screenshots and proof and all the tralala that goes with it.

I don't know but the entire thing just stinks for me, man. And read my post history on RE5. I think the game is probably gonna blow chunks. But your review and your mag sound just as bad as the gameplay here.

In fact look at one of my unedited posts here from a few weeks ago.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14666331#post14666331

''The game sounds like serious shit.

And that's coming from someone who thinks RE4 is the best game ever made.''

Not a fanboy here. I just see through your ''review'' quite easily, champ.

 

[USD]

It's awesome playing this game in being totally in-sync with the other player. Playing with some random stranger, we absolutely massacred the axecutioner (any time I/we kill him before Sheva delivers her "There's just no end to them!" line I consider a good playthrough).

 

[Future PhaZe]

Hey USD what's your GT? Or do you play on Ps3?